In or about March 1986, a surgery took place to re-implant her right ureter into her bladder. At a date unspecified, she also had surgery to remove a false second kidney.

    On 14 April 2021 they took a statement from D.N. (see paragraph   9 above), who confirmed that the applicant had told him of the rape in 2010 during their studies.

assaulted his female friend and a relative of his wife with whom he had an intimate relationship (fettering the latter naked to a tree, urinating on her and introducing fir cones into her rectum and vagina

Thereafter, each time X came to İzmir or when they met at events or festivals, she had had anal or vaginal intercourse with X, who had told her that in that way they were sharing universal love and creating

into account, or by the fact that the higher court took into account some established aggravating circumstance that the first instance court did not take into account, although it should have.

He claimed that his parents had never actually refused to have him vaccinated and that the failure to vaccinate him was due to the lack of an individualised vaccination recommendation from his paediatrician

He used to bath her (and her sisters) until the age of thirteen and during that time he was touching her (and her sisters) in her vagina and breasts. He raped her at the age of 14.

Pursuant to section 142 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, for rape to be established there has to be “vaginal or anal intercourse with a person”.

  25680/94) took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 March 2002 (Rule 59 § 2).

    The Government argued that the length of proceedings was not excessive and was attributable to the applicant, who took advantage of every avenue of appeal available to him. 44.

The medical evidence revealed vaginal injuries consistent with penetration, which were up to three days old.

They also decided to conduct a vaginal delivery. According to the applicant, in the delivery room she objected to the presence of medical students at the birth. 16 .

nationals, Ms Lyubov Nikolayevna Tsezar (“the first applicant”), Mr Nikolay Vladimirovich Tsezar (“the second applicant”), Ms Svetlana Pavlovna Karlyuk (“the third applicant”), Ms Kateryna Andrianivna Vanina

; (11) and Article 112 of the Constitution (see paragraph   57 below) and under Articles 56 and 61 of the Law on Courts (see paragraph   59 below), it was the President of the Republic who took

    On 6 April 2005 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor took statements from the legal-aid lawyer appointed by the Diyarbakır Bar Association to represent the applicant during the course of his

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16  

The men had all raped her in turn, through both vaginal and oral penetration.

[D]espite the fact that the vaginal examination of the victim did not reveal the presence of any active or passive semen, the victim’s statement that she was menstruating on the night in question and the

    A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 10 January 2024.   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr A.